Apostasy in Islam - Response to Mr.
Shamim of NFB

This is in relation to the altercation between Mr. Archemedez and
Shamimur Rahman on the issue of apostasy in Islam. Mr Shamim in
his latest response [Archimedez
& Repeated Twisting] has doubted that MA Khan and
Archemedez are the same person. Let me first clarify that
Archemedez and MA Khan are different persons. Archemedez is a
native English speaking Westerner and MA Khan is from South Asia
living in the US. However, we became known to each other through
our common interest in Islam-related issues. I had forwarded two
of his recent essays to NFB on his request as I am more familiar
with this site because of my root in South Asia.

Having said that, Archemedez has wish not to engage in this
debate any further as he has mostly expressed what he had to
say. I will put in some final words from our side on this
discourse! Mr. Shamimur Rahman has called Archemedez ignorant
about Islam and even has accused him of twisting facts. In this
regard, let me make it straight that Mr. Archemedez has not
invented anything. None of the views and opinions that he has
forwarded are his own! He has only parroted what prominent
Islamic thinkers and Imams of both recent times and of past
centuries have opined on the issue of apostasy in Islam.
Archemedez can only be accused of parroting other people's
(great Islamic thinkers, scholars and Imams) thoughts/works but
not of dishonest twisting of facts by himself. I wished Mr.
Shamim had the ability to judge that. If Mr. Shamim wants to
accuse anybody of twisting facts and call anyone ignorant about
Islam, then he should have thrown those slurs at those famous
Islamic scholars and Imams - not at Archemedez.

Now I will put a few words on the arguments and verses which
Mr. Shamim has forwarded in order to clear Islam/Koran from death
penalty for apostasy. Verse 2:256 (let there be no compulsion in
religion) does not concern apostasy at all. This verse points to
those who did not listen to Prophet's invitation (dawa) to Islam.
Let us also consider that this verse was revealed in Mecca during
the early days of Prophet's mission of preaching Islam, when
Muslims had formed a very negligible force (100-200). Allah must
have been cautious enough not to jeopardize the life of the
nascent Muslim community by expressing his real and violent
intention at such a time. A real strategist this Allah is!
However, if Mr. Shamimur was so knowledgeable of Islam - he should
not have cited this verse in discussing apostasy at all. His
attempt appears to exonerate Islam from death penalty for apostasy
at any cost - even by using unrelated materials from the Koran.
Isn't that dishonesty or ignorance on his part?

About the issue of 'apostate' and 'hypocrite' - it appears
impossible for both parties to agree which verse points to
apostates and which one to hypocrites. Let me first assert that
these 2 terms has been used in confusing manner in the Koran - at
least in the translation. Another term that has been for similar
case in translation is 'disaffected'.

I will take Mr. Shamim's interpretations of the verses from
this point on, although there is a lot of scope for arguments.
Prophet Muhammad came face to face with the hypocrites after
migrating to Medina and the leader of this group was Abdullah ibn
Obayi. He was chief of the Khazraj clan and was a powerful tribal
head. As the Prophet started attacking and evicting the various
tribes of Medina, Abdullah decided to profess to Islam and formed
alliance with the Prophet. He also started taking part in the
Muslims' plundering expeditions (decoity) of nearby communities
and highway caravan - a new profession for making a living that
started taking root in Medina as the Muslims started growing
strong in force. These robbery and raiding expeditions used to
bring in lots of easy booty which many Medina tribes could not
resist to get a share of. They started professing to Islam to join
the Muslim raid and robbery expeditions to get a share of the
booty - which sometimes included beautiful women.

Despite Abdullah's joining the Muslim community, he could not
shed all his conscience and did not agree with Muhammad's actions
in many instances. He became a serious nuisance to Muslims from
time to time. Abdullah was a powerful tribal chief and doing harm
to him could bring ire of the followers of Abdullah on the
fledging Muslim community. Hence, Muhammad had to digest his
disobedience and annoyance. When Abdullah's son, who became a
devoted Muslim, sought prophet's consent to kill his own father
(Abdullah) and bring his head to Muhammad, the latter desisted as
it could turn out dangerous for his fledgling Muslim community.

I will cite one instance of the humanity and kindness of this
much highlighted and hated hypocrite of Islam. I am quoting a
section from an article
in our website:

In April 624, on the excuse of a market brawl between a Muslim and
Jew man of the Kaynuka tribe, he (the Prophet) besieged the
settlements of that tribe - the wealthiest community in the
region. After 15 days of siege, the Jewish tribe surrendered.
Their men were tied and preparations were made for their summary
execution. At this point, Abdullah ibn Obayi, chief of the Khazraj
clan, seriously intervened. He urged Muhammad, "By
God, would you cut down these 700 men in one morning?"
He had further cautioned, "I am a man, circumstances may
change!" Muhammad, prudent as always, relented from the
slaughtering and instead exiled them to Syria. They were given
three days to leave but forbidden to take any implements of their
trade. Once the Jews left, Muhammad quickly captured their homes
and properties and distributed amongst the Muslims as booty
obtained through winning Jihad. According to ibn Ishaq, Muhammad
had already approved slaying the Jews before this event and at
least one Jew, named Ibn Sunayna was assassinated who happened to
had have fallen on the way of a Muslim convert from his own clan.

Yet, more Jew atrocity was to follow. In August 625, Muhammad
accused the Jews of the Nadhir tribe of treason because they had
commercial dealings with Abu Sufian of Mecca before the battle of
Ohud and ordered them to evacuate their settlements and proceed to
Syria on pain of death. Abdullah, the hypocrite
denounced the treason charge as baseless. Yet, the Jews were
evicted and Muhammad took possession of their swords, cuirasses,
and helmets along with their homes, firms and lands and
distributed amongst the followers.

The verses on hypocrites, all revealed in Medina, points to
this man Abdullah. The above instances clearly show that his sense
of kindness and humanity stood out amongst the entire people of
Medina in those days. Such a great man is labeled as the greatest
hypocrite in Islam because despite professing to Islam, he could
not accept blindly whatever Muhammad had said and done because of
his sense of kindness, justice and humanity. He is a hypocrite
because he didn't show blind belief in Islam like his own son. He
was a man of wavering/fluctuating commitment/faith in Islam;
that's why he was a hypocrite. Yet, he never dared declare himself
an apostate neither did he criticize Islam openly. Such a person
becomes a hypocrite worthy of killing wherever found as per the
verdict of the Koran as allegedly properly interpreted by Mr.
Shamimur Rahman.

May I ask Mr. Rahman if there is a provision for
killing Muslim apostates and critics like ibn Warraq, Taslima
Nasreen and Salman Rushdie? I am confident Mr.
Shamimur would emphatically say "No". Of
course, there is no punishment for apostates in Koran as Mr.
Shamimur has shown us conclusively. May I then ask Mr. Shamimur:
Is denouncing Islam openly (apostasy) and even
criticizing it after becoming an apostate is a lesser crime than
becoming a hypocrite just because that one cannot have a firm
faith in Islam or cannot accept everything said in the Koran?
The same remains a question to the readers as well. If hypocrites
deserve to be killed wherever found, what punishment should await
the apostates? I remind the readers that apostasy is an open smack
on the face of Islam but hypocrisy is not so - it is a fluctuating
state of faith in Islam and silent. Hypocrisy is kind of
half-belief in Islam, whereas apostasy is a slap on the face.
Apostasy is like spitting on the face of Islam/Allah, hypocrisy is
not!

If Abdullah was a hypocrite, then I must also assert that most
of the Muslims I have known in the subcontinent and in the US are
hypocrites too. Because, these Muslims on the surface claim to be
Muslims but hardly do they follow the precepts of Islam. They
hardly say regular prayers and perform other rituals with
steadfastness. They mix with the infidels and they keep friendship
with them which is prohibited in Islam [Q003.118].
Many of them drink alcohol and non-halal meats. Many of them keep
girlfriends although they are supposed to talk to unrelated Muslim
women only from behind a curtain/veil [Q33:59>>].
They are Muslims of loose faith - exactly like Abdullah, the
hypocrite. They all deserved to be killed wherever found as per
the interpretation of the Koran by Mr. Shamim.

I hope readers will agree with me that the apostate definitely
commit much deadlier crime to Islam than the hypocrites. Can
anyone justify the order of killing the hypocrites howsoever way
one might define a hypocrite? Lesser criminal (hypocrites) get
outright killing where being caught whilst much more deadly
criminals, like apostates, go scot-free in Islam. Hooh, Islam the
perfect religion of Allah!

I will now identify a few criminals who were ignorant of
Islam/Koran and violated its codes by killing the apostates. Mr.
Shamimur can also accuse them of twisting the Koranic verses to
achieve their dishonest goal. The first Muslim to kill the
apostates was Prophet Muhammad himself. According to Prophet's
biographer ibn Ishaq, two such men were from Mecca who had
accepted Islam and joined Muhammad in Medina. They later returned
to Mecca and reverted to paganism. After his triumphant arrival in
Mecca in 630, the Prophet ordered their execution for renouncing
Islam.

The next person to kill the apostates was first Caliph Abu Bakr.
The Prophet's first biographer and the great Islamic scholar and
prophet's biographer ibn Ishak writes, "When the apostle was
dead, most of the Muslims
thought of withdrawing from Islam..." Caliph Abu Bakr's first
and foremost responsibility turned out to bring many of these
desert tribes back to submission to Islam, who reverted to their
original faith, thinking the fear of the sword of the Prophet had
gone with his death. Through a series of bitter wars under the
leadership of brutal Khalid ibn Walid, those tribes were brought
back to submission after much bloodbath. These wars were famously
known as the wars of the apostasy (ridda) in the annals of Islamic history.

Of course, there are stories of Caliph Ali's killing and
burning the apostates in Islamic literature. Killing, exiling and
imprisoning the apostates itself constitute a glorious chapter in
the history of Islam - from the day of its founding to this day.
Ibn Warraq gives of list the victims of apostasy during the
Islamic rules in his book "Why I am not a Muslims".

Let me conclude here by asserting that if Mr. Shamim wishes to
accuse anyone of ignorance and dishonest twisting of the Koranic
verses, he should first and foremost point finger at the Prophet
Muhammad. Then he should point finger at Prophet's best friends
and Islam greatest heroes, namely caliph Hazrat Abu Bakr and Ali
and great Muslim general Khalid ibn Walid et al. Then he should go
after the generations of greatest Islamic scholars and Imams.

Finally, Mr. Shamim did not agree to the interpretation to the
famous Islamic scholars as he says: I disagree with
the interpretation of Baydawi provided by Archimedez.
Scholars like Baydawi, Qaradawi (Al-Azhar University don on Islam)
of Egypt et al. are the towering figures in Islamic history,
literatures and jurisprudence. They are being frequently cited by
Islamic researchers (both Western and Eastern) in every corners of
the world. I am interested to know how much time Mr. Shamim has
invested in studying Islam, how many research papers has he
produced on Islam which has acclaimed international acclaim and
how many books has he published to counter he mammoth materials
produced by Qaradawi et al. More importantly, when Dr Qaradawi
goes to London or New York, he get full-house audience for his
speeches and sermons. How many lectures have Mr. Shamim given and
how were the attendance to his speeches and sermons?

Lastly I remind again, Mr. Shamim cannot accuse Archemedez and
now MA Khan of ignorance and dishonesty for parroting other
people's views and actions including those of Prophet Muhammad.
Finger pointing should start with the prophet. We could only be
accused of parroting and lacking originality but not ignorance and
dishonest twisting.

-------------------------

Note: We had sent Archimedez's first
rebuttal to Mr. Safi who informed us that he will write back to us
if this rebuttal did warrant any response from him. He did not
respond since then. With this, we conclude our engagement on this
issue here.